>>2823845 (pb)
I'd add that "hearing" in the context of an ex parte procedure doesn't even make sense. The structure of FISA for particular warrants (not the bulk warrants) uses the phrase that the judges shall "hear" the applications (1801(a)(1)). Yet the applications must be submitted in writing (1804(a)).
The determination by the judge follows a formula, stated in 1805, that mirrors the contents specification in 1804. I imagine there might be occasions for objection or rejection of an application (see parallel in patent application, another ex parte process) where the applicant desires to advance his argument in person. But by this time, the formula for getting the "shall issue" formula correct is clear as a bell.
There is NOTHING in the statute for a hearing, other than hearing of the court sitting en banc. Those would be novel issues of law, I would think, and Carter Page application is not novel.